Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.)
O.M. BHARGAVA (DEAD) BY LRS.
Versus
SATYAVATI BHARGAVA (MRS) AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 474 of 1975 with C.A. Nos. 351 of 1980, 242 of 1990, 818 of 1992, 2474 of 1977, 235 of 1983, SLP (C) No. 15641 of 1983, W.P. (C) No. 5259 of 1980, decided on February 23, 1994
Advocates appeared :
M.C. Dhingra, Advocate, for the Appellant in C.A. No. 474 of 1975.
Ambrish Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant in C.A. No. 351 of 1980.
G.B. Pai, Senior Advocate (D.N. Mishra and Ms Meera Mathur, Advocates, with him) for the Respondent 2.
M/s Jitendra Sharma and A.K. Sanghi, Advocates, for the Appellant in C.A. No. 242 of 1990.
M/s P.H. Parekh, B.N. Agrawalla and Arvind Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondent 2.
M/s Jitendra Sharma, P. Gaur and Ms Gunwant Dara, Advocates, for the Appellant in C.A. No. 818 of 1992.
M/s G.B. Pai and J.P. Cama, Senior Advocates (M/s Rohit Puri and Mukul Mudgal, Advocates, with them) for the Respondents.
P.S. Poti, Senior Advocate (Ms Prasanthi Prasad and N. Sudhakaran, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant in C.A. No. 2474 of 1977.
R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocate (M/s H.S. Parihar and Kuldeep S. Parihar, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
P.K. Pillai, Advocate, for the Respondents.
M/s Jitendra Sharma, P. Gaur, Ms Gunwant Dara and Ms Urmila Sirur, Advocates, for the Appellant in C.A. No. 235 of 1983.
M/s P.K. Rele, H.S. Parihar and Kuldeep S. Parihar, Advocates, for the Respondents in C.A. No. 235 of 1983, SLP No. 15641 of 1983 and W.P. No. 5259 of 1980.
M/s Jitendra Sharma, P. Gaur and Ms Gunwant Dara, Advocates, for the Petitioner in SLP (C) No. 15641 of 1983.
N.N. Goswami and V.C. Mahajan, Senior Advocates (M/s T.C. Sharma, P. Parameswaran, C.V.S. Rao, Advocates, with them) for the Respondents.
P. George, Advocate, for the Respondents.
A.S. Bhasme, Advocate, for the Respondents.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) - Pharmaceutical firms - Interest of justice - Consideration in Civil Appeal No. and connected matters is whether Medical Representatives working in various pharmaceutical firms are workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act have been taken through two judgments of Court in Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of Shell Management Staff Association SCC and S.K.– Held, Court are of view it would be in the interest of justice that these matters be heard by a larger Bench - Papers be placed before Honble Chief Justice of India for his kind consideration as to whether it would be appropriate to constitute a three-Judge Bench or five-Judge Bench to hear those matters – Ordered Accordingly
ORDER
The question for consideration in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1990 and connected matters is whether the Medical Representatives working in various pharmaceutical firms are workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). We have been taken through two judgments of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India v. Burmah Shell Management Staff Association{(1970) 3 SCC 378} and S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra{(1983) 4 SCC 214}. The later three-Judge Bench has not noticed the earlier judgment which is also by three-Judge Bench. Apparently the view taken by the two Benches on the interpretation of Section 2(s) of the Act is contradictory. We are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that these matters be heard by a larger Bench. The papers be placed before Honble the Chief Justice of India for his kind consideration as to whether it would be appropriate to constitute a three-Judge Bench or five-Judge Bench to hear those matters.
Court Master
For Citation : (1994) 4 SCC 662
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
