Judgment

SAWANT, J.:- The question that falls for consideration in these matters is whether the medical representatives as they are commonly known, are workmen according to the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act). The definition under this section has undergone changes since its first enactment. It is necessary to keep in mind the said changes since the decisions of this Court delivered on the point from time to time are based on the definition, as it stood at the relevant time. The definition, as it stood originally when the ID Act came into force w.e.f. 1-4-1947, read as follows :

"[s] "workman" means any person employed (including an apprentice) in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward and includes, for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a workman discharged during that dispute, but does not include any person employed in the naval, military, or air service of the Crown".

It was amended by Amending Act 36 of 1956 which came into force from 29th August, 1956 to read as follows :

"[s] "workman" means any person (including an apprent