The power of the State Legislature to make welfare legislations and the absence of discrimination under Article 14 in extending benefits to sales promotion employees.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petition is filed challenging the provisions of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act brought in by the State of Maharashtra in form of Maharashtra Act No. XXII of 1999. By this amending Act the State wanted to include Clause No. 5 in Section 3 as well as to amend Clause 18 of Section 3. Proposed amendments are as under:

(a) for Clause (5), the following clause shall be substituted namely:

"(5) "employee", in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act for the time being applies, means an employee as defined in Clause (13) of Section 3 of the Bombay Act, and in any other case means a workman as defined in Clause(s) of Section 2 of the Central Act, and a sales promotion employee as defined in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976."

(b) for Clause (18), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:

"(18) words and expressions used in this Act and not defined therein, but defined in the Bombay Act or as the case may be, the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, shall in relation to an industry to which the provisions of the Bombay Act apply, have the meanings assigned to them by the Bombay Act or, as the case may be, the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976; and in any other case, shall have the meanings assigned to them by the Central Act or as the case may be, the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976".

2. The arguments advanced before us is that historically when sales promotion employees were being accepted to be workmen either under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Act or the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, the State Act, there is no question of treating them as such by way of aforesaid amendment.

3. Secondly it was urged before us that the definition clause of sales promotion employees as contained in the said Sales Promotion Employees Act, hereinafter referred to as "SPE Act". Section 2 Clause (d) reads as under:

"(d) "sales promotion employee" means any person by whatever name called (including an apprentice) employed or engaged in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work relating to promotion of sales or business, or both and-

(i) who draws wages (being wages, not including any commission) not exceeding seven hundred and fifty rupees per mensem; or

(ii) who had drawn wages (being wages, including commission), or commission only; in either case, not exceeding nine thousand rupees in the aggregate in the twelve months immediately preceding the month in which this Act applies to such establishment and continues to draw such wages or commission, in the aggregate, not exceeding the amount aforesaid in a year, but does not include any such person who is employed or engaged mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity."

Obviously they are not treated as workmen either under the Central Act or under the State Act.

4. It is an accepted position that in the year 1976, when the SPE Act was enacted there was a controversy whether sales promotion employees will be covered under any of the definitions of Section 2 Clause(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the answer has been in the negative. For this a reference may be made to Sandoz (India) Ltd. case reported in H.R. Adyanthaya Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd., etc. etc.,. The learned Judge Justice P.B. SAWANT, speaking for five judges has traced the history of the said Clause(s) of Section 2 of the Central enactment right upto the paragraph 2 from time to time. Thereafter in paragraphs 24, 35, 26 and 37 the learned Judge has given reasons as to why conceptually it is not possible to treat them as workmen and thus, in our opinion, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General as by way of construction.

5. While construing the said Central Act historically when it is found that the concept of the sales promotion employees is not covered, obviously the definition cannot be stretched.

6. After framing of the said 1976 Act, when p